|
 |
On 4/4/2009 9:05 AM, Warp wrote:
> Chambers<ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
>> Makes perfect sense to me.
>
> That doesn't change in any way what I said.
>
No, but you seem to be criticizing them for not supporting older
operating systems. I merely pointed out that their refusal to support
older OSs makes perfect business sense.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> No, but you seem to be criticizing them for not supporting older
> operating systems. I merely pointed out that their refusal to support
> older OSs makes perfect business sense.
I didn't criticize them for not supporting older versions. I said that
if you use Windows, you will at some point be in the situation that you
will not be getting any security updates anylonger and you will be forced
to buy a new version. Not only will the new version cost quite a lot of
money (I bet usually more than your current version), but the differences
between Windows versions are rather big. If you don't like the new version,
then you are stuck.
(The main problem with Microsoft is that they have this mentality that
every new version of Windows has to look different just for the sake of
looking different. Whether the change actually improves anything, or on
the contrary, degrades usability, is completely irrelevant.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> (The main problem with Microsoft is that they have this mentality that
> every new version of Windows has to look different just for the sake of
> looking different. Whether the change actually improves anything, or on
> the contrary, degrades usability, is completely irrelevant.)
>
It sells, if something :(. Most people won't understand a bit if you
tell them you've rewrote memory management and tweaked the scheduler,
but they do understand if you tell them you have a new shining desktop
environment available.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 4/6/2009 8:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> I didn't criticize them for not supporting older versions. I said that
> if you use Windows, you will at some point be in the situation that you
> will not be getting any security updates anylonger and you will be forced
> to buy a new version.
Fair enough, it sounded like criticism but it seems you didn't intend it
that way.
> but the differences between Windows versions are rather big.
If the differences were small, why would anyone upgrade?
> (The main problem with Microsoft is that they have this mentality that
> every new version of Windows has to look different just for the sake of
> looking different. Whether the change actually improves anything, or on
> the contrary, degrades usability, is completely irrelevant.)
From what I understand, it's the users that are the problem, and MS
doesn't like it any more than you do. But, they have to eat, which
means they have to sell the new OS, which means they have to convince
people to buy it... which means, if they put a lot of work into the
system, and make it really great, and give it the same look and feel,
people will just go "Huh?" and move on.
The problem is one of noticing things... ideally, an OS shouldn't even
be noticed. Of course, if you don't notice your OS, then you probably
don't think about buying a replacement either.
MS is in the sticky situation of needing people to notice their OS to
sell it, but needing people to NOT notice it for them to like it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
